Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

There are some very wealthy businessmen who fly Labor Party operatives around the country. Have we got a luxury tax on them? Or are we going to tax the mum out in country Australia who drives her kids to school and back every day? Senator Fielding, I know that you are not part of this. You are trying to do the right thing. But ask yourself: why isn’t the Labor Party taxing the real luxury items? Why isn’t the Labor Party putting a tax on the real luxury goods in this country and not the essential goods, which are four-wheel drives with a bullbar, some spotlights, a winch and air conditioning to deal with 40-degree temperatures?

Sure, Senator Fielding, I appreciate what you have done for the tourist operators, and I appreciate what you have done for one vehicle up in the north. But the primary producer is using his vehicle on the farm and the carer who takes the kids to school has to have the other one, and they will pay the luxury car tax on that. Why? On your own admission, Senator Fielding, you do not want to destroy the government’s budget tax measures; you want to make sure that they get their revenue—and that is a creditable thought on your behalf. But why don’t we tax the real luxury items, not the essential items? Tax the jets, tax the Rolex watches, tax the jewellery, tax the gold record collection—tax those things that really can be said to be luxury items. Please do not tax an essential means of transport for people who live in remote and country areas of Australia.

I did not want to spend this much time but Senator Conroy has baited me to get annoyed and quite emotional about the fact that this is a luxury tax on a necessity. But you are not taxing real luxury items, which you could easily do. Why that is one could only imagine. But, please, Senator Fielding, if we are going to do this, can’t you take the exemption out a little wider? I do not know how you would do it. Do you say two exemptions for a farming family? If you have two, what about three? What about four? This is why Senator Abetz’s amendment was so very sensible. Perhaps Senator Abetz was a bit generous. Perhaps, Senator Fielding, if you were inclined, you could move an amendment along the lines of Senator Abetz’s, but rather than it being $90,000 make it $80,000. I do not know; I do not have the figures. That would make it more equitable. That would mean that on a farming property not only would dad—presumably; I do not want to be sexist here—who goes out and uses the vehicle on the farm for primary production matters, get it not as a luxury car but also mum, who has to go and do the groceries and take the kids to school, would get it, a typical family arrangement. Or it could be the roo-shooter, whose sole means of livelihood requires him to have a pretty good four-wheel drive vehicle, not one of the cheap ones that will fall to bits in half a year but a fairly substantial vehicle. However, for the roo-shooter, it is a case of, ‘Sorry about that; you pay luxury car tax.’ And never mind the vet, the animal doctor! And what about the people’s doctor? If you get around in these sorts of places, you also need a four-wheel drive—and you do not want a cheap one that will disintegrate with the first kangaroo you hit and you find yourself in hospital. You want a decent four-wheel drive with a bullbar, air conditioning and a spotlight. I heard one of the Labor people say, ‘Air conditioning—what a luxury item that is!’ I challenge you, Senator Conroy—I know you are a Transport Workers Union guy; you probably drove trucks all over Australia, right up on the Darwin run up to Kununurra.